99% of accused may be granted bail on technical grounds: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 3

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that almost 99 per cent of all accused facing trial would be admitted to bail on the sole ground that the trial court did not pass a formal order extending remand while adjourning the hearing of a case. The observation by Justice Amol Rattan Singh came as the Bench, among other things, referred to a 70-year-old Supreme Court judgment.

Justice Amol Rattan Singh asserted it was required to be observed by the court that submissions by the petitioner’s counsel in the matter, in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the CrPC, would “otherwise seem to be correct especially on the touchstone of the Supreme Court judgment”. Justice Amol Rattan Singh asserted: “Yet after almost 70 years of that judgment having been passed, and criminal litigation having increased manifold above what was existent in the year 1953, as already observed in the order dated November 3, it may amount to admitting every single accused facing trial to bail, or almost 99 per cent of them, on that ground alone.”

Fixing the case for December third week for issuance of directions to the trial courts in terms of the judgment and “any judgment to be relied upon by the state counsel”, Justice Amol Rattan Singh issued a notice to Punjab and Haryana. “All state counsel to assist the court in the matter on the touchstone of the Supreme Court judgment,” the Bench added. The matter was brought to the court’s notice after one Gurjant Singh filed a petition through counsel Saurav Bhatia, who referred to Sub-section (2) of Section 309 of the CrPC. The section on “power to postpone or adjourn proceedings”, among other things, says: “If the court, after taking cognisance of an offence, or commencement of trial, finds it necessary or advisable to postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, it may, from time to time, for reasons to be recorded, postpone or adjourn the same on such terms as it thinks fit, for such time as it considers reasonable, and may by a warrant remand the accused if in custody.”

SC judgmnent cited

The Supreme Court had ruled Section 344 of the Criminal Procedure Code required a magistrate, if he chose to adjourn a case, “to remand by warrant the accused if in custody”.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.